Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 20, 2013

They Only Understand Force

In the early days of the insurgency, some U.S. commanders appeared oblivious to the possibility that excessive force might produce a backlash. They counted on the iron fist to create an atmosphere conducive to good behavior. The idea was not to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Iraqis, but to induce compliance through intimidation.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. "The only thing they understand is force -- force, pride and saving face." Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it."

Such crass language, redolent with racist, ethnocentric connotations, speaks volumes. These characterizations, like the use of "gooks" during the Vietnam War, dehumanize the Iraqis and in doing so tacitly permit the otherwise impermissible. Thus, Abu Ghraib and Haditha -- and too many regretted deaths, ...

One would have thought that such language, which Bacevich rightly characterizes as racist and ethnocentric, would not be used in a White House under a black president.

But alas, it is:

But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.

“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”

The result of such thought will of course be similar to the result in the War on Iraq where the United States lost and had to leave with its tail between its legs.

Posted by b on September 20, 2013 at 08:11 AM | Permalink

Comments
next page »

meaningful coincidence; a sign from heaven? BBC channeling Hitler Goebbels!

A pixelation error on the BBC’s big screen at Media City in Salford meant Nigel Farage appeared to have grown Hitler-style moustache when speaking to BBC Breakfast on Friday morning.

http://ind.pn/19ndB5Y

Posted by: brian | Sep 20, 2013 8:32:54 AM | 1

"War on Iraq where the United States lost and had leave with its tail between legs. ":

the US 'lost' the Iraq War?

On what planet?

Some people have always maintained that the US (or more correctly the Zio-Neo-Con-Israeli power-bloc) goal in Iraq was simply to destroy the place.

Mission Accomplished!

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 8:50:40 AM | 2

Ah yes, let's take a look at "tough guy" Mr. Benjamin Rhodes and his foreign policy credentials shall we?

Age: 37
Former occupation: speechwriter for Barack Obama
Brother, David, is President of CBS News - I'll let that one sink in.

Here's some more from his wiki c.v. - gosh, it appears the "Arab Spring" has been "Don't Call Him Gentle!" Ben's calling, huh? I wonder if he has a tattoo.

Rhodes wrote Pres. Barack Obama's 2009 Cairo speech A New Beginning.[4]

Rhodes was the one who advised Pres. Barack Obama to withdraw support from Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, becoming a key adviser during the Arab Spring.[5]

Rhodes euphemistically described the United States' military involvement in Libya as "kinetic military action."[6]

How adorable!!! This guy's one to watch - oops - Time already beat me to it..." and was mentioned by Time on the "40 Under 40" list of powerful and prominent young professionals in 2011"

Who told you that war criminals couldn't be sexy? Man, I feel so secure knowing that my nation is being led by such luminaries as Benny here.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 20, 2013 8:51:23 AM | 3

b writes:

"One would have thought that such language, which Bacevich rightly characterizes as racist and ethnocentric, would not be used in a White House under a black president."
But alas, it is

Actually, there are some of us that believe the reluctance to attack a black Democrat is PRECISELY why MIC selected Obama.

Re Ben Rhodes:

NYT’s Rhodes To Nowhere: A Cipher In The Oval Office
By Russ Baker on Mar 21, 2013

Who is Ben Rhodes? by Daniel McAdams on June 17, 2013

Posted by: erichwwk | Sep 20, 2013 9:02:11 AM | 4

b writes:

"One would have thought that such language, which Bacevich rightly characterizes as racist and ethnocentric, would not be used in a White House under a black president."
But alas, it is

Actually, there are some of us that believe the reluctance to attack a black Democrat is PRECISELY why MIC selected Obama.

Re Ben Rhodes:

NYT’s Rhodes To Nowhere: A Cipher In The Oval Office
By Russ Baker on Mar 21, 2013

Who is Ben Rhodes? by Daniel McAdams on June 17, 2013

Posted by: erichwwk | Sep 20, 2013 9:02:11 AM | 5

Shameful for a black president to use racism that way..

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 20, 2013 9:09:01 AM | 6

"Actually, there are some of us that believe the reluctance to attack a black Democrat is PRECISELY why MIC selected Obama."

well, duh!

(not aimed at the person that wrote that)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 9:13:03 AM | 7

Just digging for fun turned up this nice family story about how the Rhodes brothers helped "fix" the Benghazi incident last September by threatening reporters and rewriting their talking points. Those Rhodes boys, what jokers!

But here's the REAL KICKER on Ben Rhodes :

We don’t really learn much about Rhodes’s either, beyond the fact that he is quietly pushing for more US intervention in Syria, on the heels of a successful push to convince a supposedly reticent Obama to bomb the heck out of Libya, purportedly for human rights reasons. Some now know better—that removing Qaddafi had precious little to do with helping innocent people and a lot to do with oil companies, banks and intelligence agencies.

What’s especially strange about the article is that, for those of us who continue to wonder how a virtual cipher rose so quickly from the Illinois legislature to become the most powerful person in the world, we end up wondering the same thing about an aspiring novelist from New York City who fairly catapults to enormous influence in shaping policy regarding some of the most complex and sensitive matters facing this country.

Somehow, beyond noting that “In many ways, Mr. Rhodes is an improbable choice for a job at the heart of the national security apparatus,” the Times is not sufficiently curious about any of this to probe further. Instead, it provides a clutch of clichés. We learn that the Rhodes family is fiercely divided between Yankees fans and Mets fans. We learn the father is a conservative-leaning Episcopalian from Texas, the mother a liberal Jew from New York.

Though the Times never underlines this, the careful reader comes to realize that Rhodes’s guiding philosophy is as hard to discern as the precise reasons that he has the president’s ear. In 1997, he briefly worked on the re-election campaign of New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican. Shortly after 9/11, the aspiring novelist suddenly decided to do his part for society, moving in 2002 from Queens to Washington, and quickly found himself “helping draft the 9/11 Commission report as well as the Iraq Study Group report.”

We are never even told what kind of education Rhodes got, or where, or whether he has ever been anything beyond an aspiring novelist. There’s no indication of what he did on Giuliani’s campaign (he would only have been about 19 or 20 at the time) or whether his preference for the mayor who presided over the 9/11 response had anything to do with his going to Washington, or miraculously being hired by Democrat Lee Hamilton to explain 9/11 to the public.

From these improbable beginnings, Rhodes is suddenly a speechwriter on Obama’s presidential campaign. How did he come to Obama’s attention? The article doesn’t say. However, it does note that the Iraq Study group report on which Rhodes worked “was a template for the anti-Iraq war positions taken by Barack Obama” as a senator and candidate.

Not only did this unknown Ben Rhodes somehow become a speechwriter and then a hawkish foreign policy adviser to POTUS before that he worked ON THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT and before that was a staffer for Rudy Giuliani!!!

BTW, wunderkind brother David also happened to be the assistant manager of the news desk at Fox on - you guessed it - 9/11. Hmmm, shall we roll back the tapes and see what calls about 9/11 Fox News made that day before any one else?

Remember, it was Bush's cousin, John Ellis, at Fox News Channel who incorrectly called - oops - the 2000 election for Bush on Novemeber 8 that started THAT whole parade.

I guess we should just consider Ben Rhodes to be the 21st century's Forrest Gump.

Life is like a box of box-cutters, right, Ben?

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 20, 2013 9:18:53 AM | 8

Over here in the states revisionist history always saves the present from the past. Look at Obama's campaign to rewrite the narrative of the Viet Nam war. Then Hollywood whips up some trash like Zero Dark Thirty or Argo to help perpetuate the propaganda.

Posted by: par4 | Sep 20, 2013 9:23:20 AM | 9

Ben Rhodes also helped Kean and Hamilton - heads of the 9/11 commission - co-write the book "Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" a whitewash of the whitewash.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 20, 2013 9:34:49 AM | 10

We learn the father is a conservative-leaning Episcopalian from Texas, the mother a liberal Jew from New York.
Well, I never, Who'd a thunk it.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 20, 2013 9:42:49 AM | 11

It gets better:
"Though the Times never underlines this, the careful reader comes to realize that Rhodes’s guiding philosophy is as hard to discern as the precise reasons that he has the president’s ear"

Gosh yeah - REAL hard to work that out alright - where's Einstein when ye need him?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 9:47:02 AM | 12

The other side of the "They only understand force" coin is inscribed "We only have force."
The sheer banality of the doctrine is a very poor reflection of the imperial culture from which it emanates: the United States is full of people who know better, people who have actually studied history and benefited from the vast experience imperialists have accumulated over the past five centuries.

But Washington, notoriously, suffers from hubris. The President and his cronies have no desire to be surrounded by wise or experienced advisors. That would only cramp their style, not to say, styling. Instead, very much like their fellow feeling tyrants in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, they crave the company of flatterers and Yes men. Which is where Samantha Powell, Rice and this latest idiot, Rhodes (but not the scholar)come in.

And I am all for it, it brightens my day considerably to get snippets of detail to confirm my conclusion that the Empire is in the hands of as incompetent, narcissistic and vacuous a bunch of Executive branch advisors as its military is run by stupid and corrupt careerists in the pockets of arms salesmen.

So it is largely good news.
Of course we can't have everything, so there is the frustration of watching people like Ben, who could probably be persuaded that Syria is an island and that Bahrain is a democracy, playing a bigger role in warmaking than the Congress to which the Constitutional Convention confided the task. It is sad to realise that people die in their thousands at the whim of these light minded conformists. Just as slaves killed one another to make Roman holidays.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 20, 2013 9:47:16 AM | 13

Samantha Power.
Speaking of whom... is now being blamed for, cleverly, refusing Venezuela's Presidential aircraft passage over Puerta Rico.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 20, 2013 9:54:44 AM | 14

Problem people have is that they foolishly think that what these people SAY has any connection to what they DO.

that's why they run around convinced that these people are stupid.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 9:59:04 AM | 15

Yes, b. Yes, yes, yes!
This goes right to the heart of the problem facing the D***A** Yankees in Syria - outrageous bullying and lying lurking behind ill-concealed cowardice. The Superpower myth is heading for the drain. The decisive factor propping up the myth isn't the spectacle of overwhelming force applied against weak or defenseless pushovers, it's the absence of significant casualties within Team America as a planned by-product of unprovoked aggression...

Impunity

"Minimal casualties" isn't even a plausible daydream when deciding whether, or not, to provoke a conflict with Russia. No matter the outcome of such folly, the first thing to take a direct hit will be Impunity and with it the Superpower myth - dead and buried. They cannot and will not take the chance.
It'll be mildly amusing, but sickening, to hear how they walk back the bluster.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 20, 2013 10:01:33 AM | 16

I often wonder what "shit" the Neocons had on Colin Powell to make him do the UN fiasco on CW in Iraq.

Posted by: cloned_poster | Sep 20, 2013 11:01:41 AM | 17

bizarre that some people still think that Colon Powell needed to be somehow "coerced" or "tricked" into lying at the UN

Colon and MyLai

Colin Powell, then a 31-year-old Army major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference Mỹ Lai (Glen had limited knowledge of the events there). In his report, Powell wrote,

"In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal Division[62] soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Powell's handling of the assignment was later characterized by some observers as "whitewashing" the atrocities of Mỹ Lai.[63]

In May 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, told CNN's Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."[64]

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 11:07:44 AM | 18

@ # 4 "Actually, there are some of us that believe the reluctance to attack a black Democrat is PRECISELY why MIC selected Obama."

Bingo! Paint me in that camp also. Vetted and controled by his corporate masters, as Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report explained, He's the perfect "Trojan Horse" President. Mouthing progressive platitudes, and even being allowed to change some social mores, while pursuing the agenda of the Globalists. Stopped in the push for War in Syria, more tests are on the way. We'll see which side he takes on the XL pipeline, and the TPP (trans pacific partnership trade agreement).

Posted by: ben | Sep 20, 2013 11:08:21 AM | 19

Colon played the same role for the bush admin that Barry Hitler plays now as US Prez

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 11:08:46 AM | 20

maybe not the right thread? Force is sometimes superseded by commercial interests.

Several court cases in the EU have exempted or ‘lifted’ sanctions for some biz. and cos. from Iran.

The EU Tribunal (6 sept 13) has judged sanctions to be illegal concerning 7 cos. and one individual. The general rationale is that these entities have no link with the nuclear program, as proven to the court. These include Persia Intl. Bank, Iran insurance, Refah Jargaran Bank. This is not new, several others have won cases like this in the past, and there are 60 dossiers waiting.

In June, the Brit ‘Supreme’ court, came down on the side of Mellat bank, in a clear judgment. Sanctions agains the bank were according to the judges, disproportionate, discriminatory, irrational, etc. Mellat is requesting compensation from the Brits. This case has some interesting side issues, dealing with ‘secret’, ‘non public’ information (from SS - we know but can’t tell you, reveal anything, ha ha...) which are detailed in the PDF below, it is a *First* in Brit jurisprudence, allegedly.

Waiting in GB to be judged are 493 entities and 105 individuals. (Reportedly...)

The article in F is behind a pay wall should nevertheless be visible here, if not, sorry:

http://tinyurl.com/oeezwms

Baroness Ashton says the sanctions are working.

PDF, Mellat vs. her Majesty.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0040_PressSummary.pdf

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 20, 2013 11:12:34 AM | 21

The only thing, white nigger understands is the language of force (take the case of North Korea compared with Libya). Iran should become a nuclear weapon state. The only thing white nigger understands is nuclear deterrence.

Posted by: Labo | Sep 20, 2013 11:32:26 AM | 22

hmmm most of your silly little contributions to these discussions include, or consist entirely of, juvenile insults. It is a tribute to b's liberalism that he allows you to deface his site and ridicule his visitors. No doubt he assumes that you will come to realise that you are discrediting yourself keystroke by stroke. I doubt it. You strike me as being as impervious to reality as you, and your straight man Berkeley, are to the basic rules of civil discourse.

I have not the slightest doubt that your disruptions are motivated not by the rigorous anti-zionism which you affect, but by a determination to discredit the extremely valuable work that this site plays not just in undermining propaganda lies but in attracting a broad and influential readership.

The alacrity with which you accuse anyone differing from your half baked witterings of being hasbara is a pretty reliable indication that you are precisely that yourself. This is merely a theory, of course, but it is one that you tend to confirm almost every time that you post anew.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 20, 2013 11:32:48 AM | 23

Putin's religious views, and pretty old-fashioned they are too:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=10764

Bevin, you should get down out of that pulpit and learn to talk ordinary-like.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 20, 2013 11:40:57 AM | 24

bevin you are a boring old fart with an astoundingly high opinion of himself.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 11:49:15 AM | 25

So, the new narrative being rolled out by the Zionist West is that "moderate" Syrians are battling AlQaeda/jihadists. Surely, this has sporadically happened throughout the Syrian conflict. But is this really true overall or is it part of the next concocted propaganda stream to allow direct intervention?

The story seems to be changing after - especially here in the US - the war criminal PR flacks got caught trying to drum up a war that even the idiot American public could tell was going to benefit AlQaeda/jihadists.

Now, the FSA et al aren't fighting WITH AlQaeda et al but AGAINST AlQaeda!

Thus, we are all returned to - PRESTO!! - the original 9/11-War On Terror narrative! Joy!

I guess since those plucky Syrian "moderates" are now fighting/killing the evildoers responsible for 9/11 - USA! - I'd better get my friends down to the enlistment office, eh?

Also, how does this new narrative fit in with Jamil's stalemate comments yesterday? Does he really speak for Assad?

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 20, 2013 11:53:18 AM | 26

The middle east can look back on some thousand years of civilization.
zusa, on the other hand, has? Nada. Zilch. The indigenious with their established high culture were - of course - destroyed or enslaved by the scum that was shipped to northern america.

So, some scumbag with a star on his shoulders farts his "opinion" about cultivated human bings. So what. One might as well listen to some dogs "opinion" (which quite probably would be more educated and cultivated).

It's obvious: the zamerican "officer" thug described the harsh reality of zusans. They understand force only.


Ceterum censeo non modo israel sed etiam zusa delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 20, 2013 12:16:33 PM | 27

from a link provided by JSorrentine @8:

ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU ...

how fit for a guy in charge of the Empire's narrative!

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 12:26:07 PM | 28

Corbett/GlobalResearch video on gas attacks/false flag including video interview of Mother Agnes. Apologies if posted already.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 20, 2013 12:34:48 PM | 29

all this Zusa, Zionist West, etc is getting tyring; one thing that recent events demonstrated is that the Israel Lobby isn't omnipotent in the Us nor in Europe (although way too powerful and dangerous)

amidst many childish cries for victory over the revelations of Israel ambassador in the Us that Israel wants Assad gone, as if that was conclusive evidence in matters where the Israeli establishment is deeply divided, I'd say we must admit that 'someone' was right in asserting that no lobby could push a country to wage war against its will

of course it isn't over yet, but a bit more humility and tolerance would be welcome for a fruitful debate

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 12:35:25 PM | 30

"I'd say we must admit that 'someone' was right in asserting that no lobby could push a country to wage war against its will"

that is NOT what he claimed at all - he claimed that it was NOT the Lobby that wanted an attack on Syria.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 12:44:16 PM | 31

5-Sadly quite a few black people are rabidly racist.
Why should Obama who grew up with a "Anglo" all around, hearing their terminology & immersed in their world be any different?
His exploration/discovery of the African America experience in Chicago was probably a descent into an exotic new world for him.
Jeremiah Wright was his Sherpa and Michelle, his partner and new Eve into this metaphysical paradise.
I don't even understand Obama anymore, from the awe and wonder I initially had in him. I wake up everyday disapointed & disgusted by him.
I don't live in Russia, but when I watch RT or other news outlets, I see Putin and feel a slight admiration and a touch of envy that America, does not have a man in the White House, or even a human being.
We have a clown, a puppet a cheap trick turning tricks and doing more harm either through ineptitude or conscious iniquity.
By the way...
Hmmmmm
Has recently become the latest Bête noir...

Posted by: Fernando | Sep 20, 2013 12:46:41 PM | 32

@30

Allow me to show from a MOA thread from September 4th that it was actually originally Claudio's OWN OPINION - not hasbarist par excellence, somebody's, "that no lobby could push a country to wage war against its will" as he tries to state today.

From the Sept 4th link:

"I've come to some (temporary) conclusions, regarding this sudden drive for war, in a situation that seems much more obscure to me than to many posters here:

snip

3) I think there are many reasons for which AIPAC may support a military aggression: but they largely coincide with Us interests I outlined above; I think it's quite naive to think that the Us are being pushed by Israel in a war it doesn't want;

I remember this b/c as an American I couldn't believe that anyone - meaning claudio - could be so ignorant about the power of the Israeli lobby - whose work is not done concerning Syria and whose malignant work seemingly never ends, btw - in the US.

I then - in the September 4th thread - decided to apparently waste my time pointing out to claudio - who was then joined by his somebuddy (of "Nobody can push 300 million people into a war they do not want" fame) - how wrong they were by incessantly batting down nonsense post after nonsense post of theirs.

Oh well, how do you say, puoi portare un cavallo all'acqua? And yes, I know it's not really a saying in Italy but since you obviously don't exhibit the capacity to understand American politics when I explain it to you in English maybe I should try translating other American things to you in Italian.

Capisce?

As to your somebuddy - he already knows what his deal is: ha$bara. Wait, is that one or two $?

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 20, 2013 1:29:38 PM | 33

in matters where the Israeli establishment is deeply divided, I'd say we must admit that 'someone' was right in asserting that no lobby could push a country to wage war against its will. Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 12:35:25 PM | 30
that is NOT what he claimed at all - he claimed that it was NOT the Lobby that wanted an attack on Syria. Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 12:44:16 PM | 31
Whatever' someone' said, what I have been trying to say is that: (a) the US Jewish Lobby takes its orders from Israel; (b) in order to avoid being classified as agents of a foreign power, they have to constantly put out propaganda through their countless controlled media (ie practically the whole of the US media) arguing that, no they're not, on the contrary, they have countless minutely worked-out arguments that everything they propose is solely for the good of the USA, which they love more than they love life itself; (c) precisely because they never do anything until they get orders from Israel, and Israel was 'officially neutral' about Syria until far too late, they didn't lurch into action until precisely the worst moment, when Obama was already running his behind the scenes detente with Lavrov; (d) the Jewish Lobby then had to reverse course, with a terrible crashing of gears, again much too late; (e) all this exposes precisely what they wanted hidden; the US Jewish Lobby now stands exposed as the agent of a foreign power that they only ever do exactly what Israel tells them to do.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 20, 2013 1:45:28 PM | 34

all this exposes precisely what they wanted hidden; the US Jewish Lobby now stands exposed as the agent of a foreign power that they only ever do exactly what Israel tells them to do.

There's a slight possibility that that was one of the aims of this farce/bluff

It seemed obvious me, from round Aug 30th, that the US was not serious about escalating this into a full blown firework show just yet, and that some sort of legal agreement, relating to Syrian CW, was their immediate aim.

My thinking was that, similar to Iraq, such a legal entanglement could be used later to escalate if they desired. And that reasoning still looks fairly solid to me, despite what others may claim about the suppossed motives of the guilty parties

Lately I've begun to wonder if the open exposure of the Lobby was possibly a deliberate part of the ruse.

The US Mil never seemed to be 100% behind this latest push.

Some here have posited an overly simplistic, imo, Lobby vs "establishment" dichotomy.

I think that is hopelessly outdated thinking. It does not recognise the military as a possibly distinct entity for example. Distinct from the "establishment" (whatever the hell that is)

Now that the Lobby seems to have been forced to retreat a little, for the time being, their future ability to direct the Empire into war may be somewhat curtailed due to being exposed in the manner that they have been recently

And that may have been factored in from the start.

May have, note.


Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 2:17:58 PM | 35

bevin @ 23: Gee bevin, everyone has to earn a living. Well said.

Posted by: ben | Sep 20, 2013 2:58:41 PM | 36

@33 - if you read my statement carefully, I was referring to other powerful domestic lobbies, not to the "300 million people"; I thought (and think) that "people's power" in this historical phase, in western countries, is practically non-existent; (but b also seems to side with 'somebody', when he explains Obama's retreat saying that "The British population, like in the U.S., had no stomach for another lengthy war")

I also have to correct myself: I'm not sure that 'somebody' was right, only that events seem to prove him so, just as they seem to prove right those who said that Israel was actively involved in ousting Assad since the beginning of the "Arab spring";

I'm still also not sure that Lavrov's proposal was good for Syria, which simply had no choice but to accept, but now seems reduced to the status of a Russian client state;

I simply say that there is ample space for doubts, hypothesis, and debate, without vilifying opponents and without throwing epithets.

Of course these thoughts of mine are directed at posters who are maybe excessively passionate (and often needlessly rude), but in good faith, not to those whose aim is to hijack MoA's threads and render debate impossible.

one last point:

I then - in the September 4th thread - decided to apparently waste my time pointing out to claudio - who was then joined by his somebuddy (of "Nobody can push 300 million people into a war they do not want" fame) - how wrong they were by incessantly batting down nonsense post after nonsense post of theirs.
strange how I instead had the feeling of battling down your nonsense, which events proved such (that Us would simply take orders from the Lobby, and that Us Congressmen would "interpret" AIPAC's desires without the need of an explicit lobbying action), post after post

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 3:11:47 PM | 37

@35 - welcome to the world of distinctions

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 3:13:05 PM | 38

Claudio, you forget - lobby vs "establishment" was YOUR invention in that conversation. One I questioned in the first comment I posted discussing it.

Welcome to the world of "oh yeah, so it was"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 3:23:57 PM | 39

Iirc i said that "establishment" was a very ill-defined group. But nonetheless lobby vs "establishment" was your incention, not mine.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 3:27:14 PM | 40

Invention

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 3:27:49 PM | 41

hmm, I remember very well; I was trying to draw distinctions, you thought it was useless (to say the least), now you are (justly!) criticizing my insufficient, or inadequate distinctions; but I would be unfair if I didn't admit that your first foray into this more sophisticated world gave good results; your hypothesis - that AIPAC being forced out into the open was an expected and desired result of Us policymakers - is interesting

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 3:37:00 PM | 42

hmm, I remember very well; I was trying to draw distinctions, you thought it was useless (to say the least),


nonsense - in comment #118 on that thread I first questioned the simplistic "lobby vs establishment" setup that you, claudio, had introduced to the conversation, and then in comment #122 i pointed out that the lobby was not monolithic, saying that there was at least one other powerful group.

At the time I just simply could not be bothered listing all the possible other power-nodes/groups that YOUR "lobby vs establishment" invention did not even acknowledge.

the rest of your reply @42 is frankly, like your friend bevin, just laughably pompous, claudio.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 3:54:59 PM | 43

What I thought was "useless", was that overly-simplistic lobby vs "establishment" invention of yours, claudio.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 4:04:44 PM | 44

hmm, at that stage your were already evolving, and attempting your first steps in the sophisticated world where distinctions are made; when our exchanges began (starting at #84 and #85), you apparently weren't yet aware of the meaning and function of distinctions in the analysis of complex problems; or maybe at the time you thought the problems we were discussing were simple

btw, does "pompous" mean you couldn't find specific objections to make?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 4:23:53 PM | 45

Zio-Nazis still baying for Iranian blood

No time left for negotiations with Iran: Israeli minister

Iran is on course to develop a nuclear bomb within six months and time has run out for further negotiations, a senior Israeli minister said.


The Zio-Nazis have been saying that "Iran is just 6 months away from having a Nuke-bomb" for at least the last 15yrs.

Not having learned anything from their war-mongering's recent exposure to daylight, here they are telling that blatant lie once again.


Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 4:28:56 PM | 46

No, claudio, pompous means that you, like your friend bevin, simply sound ridiculously pompous. It's a simple enough concept to understand, for less pompous individuals any

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 4:32:05 PM | 47

...way

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 4:32:55 PM | 48

pompous means we are polite when we write?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 4:41:23 PM | 49

No, it mean you are simply pompous.

I realise the over-edumacated, lacking the ability to actually have original thoughts, like to disguise their lack of originality by substituting florid pomposity in it's stead.

Still, it's hilarious when witnessed

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 4:47:00 PM | 50

@37

With an aim to practice true humility and tolerance, after this post I will forgo responding to you as 1) I don't think others want to read it, 2) it's only tangentially relevant to the OP and 3) I have more worthwhile - yet surprisingly similar - things to do today such as kick the crap out of my 2 year old niece in rugby. Effing toddler.

Let's start from the beginning: you start by attempting to downplay Zionist influence in the US/West (YOU'RE tired of it?! try living here, pal!), next you call people "childish", you continue by defending a blatant hasbarist poster and end with an appeal for "humility and tolerance".

That's about "parse" for the course, huh? (Never mind.)

However, when I reminded you that there's a traceable history of you defending - poorly - the same ideas that you trotted out today you utilize the same deflection tactics - of which my least favorite is called "running to the moderator/site owner" e.g. "well b said..." - that you used previously. And your precious "humility and tolerance"? Why they are just nowhere to be found. Kind of like AIPAC in the halls of the US Congress, huh? snort

If you really feel that Israel's influence in American politics is questionable/waning or even has been defeated due to the ongoing Syria affair well then that's great because I hear that Italy's economy is just going gangbusters - i.e., doing tremendously well - unemployment is near record lows and Italian governance has been a panacea of peace and collegiality these last three years. Do I have that all about right? Or should we exchange ideas?

Lastly, if you think a country like Israel is not familiar with such terms as "limited hangout" and related practices in regards to managing public perception especially in regard to American/Western media - yes, even the Internets - then you might not want to pop the prosecco just yet. By deception they will do more...wait a second....

Tootles.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 20, 2013 4:48:59 PM | 51

@51 - I said

the Israel Lobby isn't omnipotent in the Us nor in Europe (although way too powerful and dangerous)

you retorted:

you start by attempting to downplay Zionist influence in the US/West
...
If you really feel that Israel's influence in American politics is questionable/waning or even has been defeated

are you a troll, JSorrentine, or do you receive pleasure from making a fool of yourelf?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 5:02:34 PM | 52

@50 - "over-educated"? and it obstacles originality?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 5:07:08 PM | 53

Disguises

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 5:22:53 PM | 54

@8

There are nesting Matroshka dolls here, my friend.

You are forgetting that Ben Rhodes is himself, policy advisor to a President that NO ONE had heard of, eight-years before he was elected, supposedly a Constitutional law expert, before becoming a junior Senator.

Just as little curiosity was expressed about Mr. Obama's published work and Doctoral dissertations - or of the extra-ordinary path that led him on a meteoric political rise, where other have toiled for decades without half such result.

Obama's "blackness" has been a beard - to hide all inquiry and criticism of "who he is and why he's there".

Only Black folk, belatedly take much serious stock of this. He wasn't there to court us, 'tho. His blackness was there to manage and contain white perception.

There is a nefarious agency behind the mere existence of Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Obama. Chicago is a clue - as is the MEGA mayor of that city, today.

-- Jeremiah

Posted by: Jeremiah Cornelius | Sep 20, 2013 5:23:05 PM | 55

" His blackness was there to manage and contain white perception."

Well said.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 5:26:24 PM | 56

Whoops - 54 should be " disguises a lack of .. . "

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 5:27:23 PM | 57

@57 - so the debate on MoA shouldn't be about our hypothesis over what's really going on, but rather on their originality and on the pompousness (i.e. good manners) with which they are presented? you give the impression of escaping debate over the merit of what's being said

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 5:34:12 PM | 58

@56

Thanks. And by "white" I am designating not an ethnic division, but the "meaningful proportion of the electorate". Personally, I know white guys, "blacker" than Obama - and Obama's lot "whiter" than, hell... Probably you. :-)

Posted by: Jeremiah Cornelius | Sep 20, 2013 5:37:41 PM | 59

Not at all. The debate here, such as it is, can take any form.

I'm just laughing at you and your friend bevin choosing pomposity as a substitute for originality.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 5:44:31 PM | 60

hmm, you are contradicting yourself, do you realize it?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 5:48:46 PM | 61

@59 - agreed

@58 brevity can indicate a clear understanding
Pomposity, however, is almost always a disguise for a lack of same

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 5:50:44 PM | 62

An Israel Lobby-aligned analyst at the NYT is pushing a hawkish narrative that is appreciated by significant slice of the paper's advertisenrs and readership. One doesn't need to defend Obama or Rhodes to see how the NYT cherry-picks its administration sources and former sources as well as choice quotes to craft an op-ed that suits the Israel Lobby's framing. A longer quote from Sanger (with Dennis Ross as the ultimate authority, naturally):

In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.

“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”

Skeptics — and there are plenty in the National Security Council, the Pentagon, America’s intelligence agencies and Congress — are not so optimistic. They think Mr. Obama runs the risk of being dragged into long negotiations and constant games of hide-and-seek that, ultimately, will result in little change in the status quo. They argue that the president’s hesitance to pull the trigger on Tomahawk strikes on Syria nearly two weeks ago, and the public and Congressional rebellion at the idea of even limited military strikes, were unmistakable signals to the Syrian and Iranian elites that if diplomacy fails, the chances of military action ordered by the American president are slight.

“These two situations are deeply intertwined,” said Dennis B. Ross, who served as Mr. Obama’s lead adviser on Iran for the first three years of his presidency, and who argued for attacking Syria after the Aug. 21 gas attacks that killed more than a thousand civilians. “If the Syrians are forced to give up their weapons, it will make a difference to the Iranian calculation,” and would raise the prospects of some deal with Tehran.

“If the Syrians can drag this out and give up just a little, that will send a very different message to the supreme leader,” he said.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Sep 20, 2013 5:56:02 PM | 63

Iran’s erratic mullahs.

Regarding foreign policy, Iran's mullahs leaders don't appear at all 'erratic'.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 6:05:59 PM | 64

@53

"Iran’s erratic mullahs"

I have PLENTY of personal, political and theological argument with the Iranian government, and the institutions of religiously derived authority that mint Ayatollahs.

However, "erratic" is not a rational assessment, or an accurate characterization. It is a part of a continuous, smearing campaign, that relies on assumed racism and prejudice for its unexamined consumption.


In fact, they are incredibly canny and sophisticated.

Posted by: Jeremiah Cornelius | Sep 20, 2013 6:08:23 PM | 65

hmm, you answered on topic until you thought you had arguments, then took refuge in senseless snippets

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 6:42:41 PM | 66

Horrendus pro-israeli, neocon - bill kristol call netanyahu "leader of the west" and urge attack on Iran.

http://inagist.com/all/381035527358529536/

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 20, 2013 6:48:26 PM | 67

@66 yeah, Whatever.

I answered on topic until the pomposity became too much to for me to even pretend to take seriously

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 7:01:35 PM | 68

Being called pompous by a clown who repeatedly writes of "coup de tats" is only to be expected.

The truth is, hmmm, that far from thinking originally you simple repeat some of the more shopworn talking points of the more tawdry end of the fossil fuel lobby.

The only original aspect of your contributions is the rapidity with which you fire them off, all the more noteworthy since you are clearly a man whose right hand is generally otherwise employed.

As to the substance of your contributions it almost invariably consists of nasty slurs, cheap debating points, based on misrepresentations and half truths, and "spot the other" lynchings of individuals who stray from the truth as you see it.

Such activities are waste of everyone's time and of yours particularly. That pointing this out could be a waste of my time, I am only too well aware. If it serves to alert others to the destructive role that you play here, however, it is worth every moment spent in horrified contemplation of your pathetic persona.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 20, 2013 7:27:49 PM | 69

@68 you answered on topic until you thought you had arguments - that is, once; at the first objection, you took refuge in snippets

Posted by: claudio | Sep 20, 2013 7:34:03 PM | 70

@13 bevin: fantastic analysis.

Obama, is of course not at all the leader of anything - he is just Bill and Hillary Clinton's salesman.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 20, 2013 7:43:37 PM | 71

@63 "Skeptics — and there are plenty in the National Security Council, the Pentagon, America’s intelligence agencies and Congress"

"Plenty"? Meaning more than one, presumably. And if we use the Israeli-suicide-bombing-to-9/11-victim multiplier, it's probably a majority...

Oh NYTimes.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 20, 2013 7:57:15 PM | 72

Being called a clown by a guy who's big opener accusation is that I once, several days ago, misspelt the plural of a phrase that comes from french? Rofl.

Bev, dearest, that's almost the very definition of "pompous". Thank you for proving my point so magnificently

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 7:59:52 PM | 73

Hmm, you've made over 1/3 off the posts in this thread. 25 in total so far.

There is nothing you have said that couldn't have been condensed into 5 posts.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 20, 2013 8:01:31 PM | 74

And btw bevin is 100 times the thinker and 1000 times the person you are, so get off your high horse and stop trying to domineer the conversation with your soulless pestering. Just Make your points and move one. Ffs.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 20, 2013 8:08:13 PM | 75

hmmm

I think that everyone here, incl. yourself, would benefit from not judging others, their style or (what we think is) their personality but rather to discuss issues/matter at hand.

We are human and as such we sometimes sin; no fuzz about an occasional unasked for personal judgement. But let's honestly try to discuss issue, not persons here.

Friendly regards - Mr. P.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 20, 2013 8:42:57 PM | 76

hmmm appears to be hijacking the threads here...

claudio and bevin have been barflies here for eons... knock off the personal attacks on them. No one is buying them/

Posted by: Crone | Sep 20, 2013 9:05:56 PM | 77

Since neither bev nor claudio are at all shy about expressing their opinions of me, I see no reason not to return the favour. Or should there be one law for them and one for those they consider "outsiders" or "other"?

I said earlier i thought it was foolish, meaning "unwise", to mistake words for actions regarding obama etc - his reply to that was simply pompous vitriol, imo, as was his latest reply.
Just as he stated his opinion, so I stated mine.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 9:25:11 PM | 78

32;Damn,I wish we had an American Putin,a Potus who cared for his nation,not a bunch of Zionist oligarchs like this marionette.And Obomba,in my opinion,instead of being Muslim,actually doesn't like(hates?)them,as his upbringing in Indonesia,and taunting and stoning from the youth there who called him black boy,or(read that a while ago) some racist expression,left mental scars.At least,from his actions,It leads me there better than the absurd Muslim pap.Plus his Muslim fathers abandonment could have left some scars also.
Is Ben Rhodes another vizier?Among all his other flunkies?

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 20, 2013 9:29:49 PM | 79

hmmm

It seems to me that most criticism toward you is not meaning *you* butyour point of view and, possibly most imporantly, your indeed somewhat irritating habit of "shooting" off lots of small posts.

Rest assured that there is neither measuring with two sets of rules nor bad intention toward you.

Last but not least, as one wise old offiver once mentioned: A seasoned soldier doesn't shoot at bickering old men; nor does he shoot at boys, for them a slap is enough; he shoots at other seasoned and well equipped soldiers because only they can pose any danger.

I assume you're not a boy nor a rookie.

So let's focus on what brought us here in the first place and let us not forget that it's the melange of other spirits and eyes looking on the world (and an experienced and capably reasoning host) that makes MoA attractive for us, OK.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 20, 2013 9:38:40 PM | 80

This thread is the first in which i have said anything rude regarding bevin personally.

And given his earler replies, my stated opinion of him was well deserved.

But you are correct, and I'll probably be banned for saying it, this bickering, with a pompous boring old fart such as bevin, is distracting

Posted by: hmm | Sep 20, 2013 9:53:39 PM | 81

How's about a universal ceasefire...? Let's agree to disagree in a civil manner, state your opinion but please use facts, not invective...! 8-(

I've been a longtime Barfly and respect and admire many of y'all, both here and on numerous other blogs...! *namaste*

Posted by: CTuttle | Sep 20, 2013 10:35:45 PM | 82

Gads....go away for a week and its the same old crap. I thought, for a while there, that hmm had wised up.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 20, 2013 10:36:08 PM | 83

"The only original aspect of your contributions is the rapidity with which you fire them off, all the more noteworthy since you are clearly a man whose right hand is generally otherwise employed"

HA!!!!

Now thats the ticket. I tried to explain to hmm, once, that successful ad hominem needs to be clever and entertaining. When employed with wit, it becomes forgivable, even to the target. Well done, Bevin.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 20, 2013 10:41:09 PM | 84

#2...

Hmmmm, hmm. I woulda thought, with all your bluster, you'd be a bit better informed. The actual intent was to raid, loot, and corporatize Iraq. Obviously you have never read Klien's "Bagdad Year Zero". I suggest you do so. You mifght as wwell put yourself in the position of knowing WTF you're talking about.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 20, 2013 10:49:50 PM | 85

It's time to revisit that old browser add-on, Remove Serial Posters From Sight.
It's useful meanwhile the bar owner doesn't ban clearly disruptive elemmments.

Posted by: citizen x | Sep 20, 2013 11:40:45 PM | 86

hmmm appears to be hijacking the threads here... claudio and bevin have been barflies here for eons... knock off the personal attacks on them. No one is buying them/ Posted by: Crone | Sep 20, 2013 9:05:56 PM | 77
Crone, if you are a crone, I am afraid you are demonstrating once again the rather regrettably common female characteristic to dive into politics without understanding it. However long either of them has been posting comments here ('barflies' as you catchily put it) is irrelevant to what they may be up to when they post them. I have not noticed anything particularly about Claudio yet, but I have noticed, as how could anybody at all educated in politics not notice, that bevin is presenting a party line, and that is why he expresses it in a pompous way. Which party it is I neither know nor care, but I assume it's a trotskyist one, since there are more of them.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 21, 2013 1:03:17 AM | 87

@85

I have not noticed anything particularly about Claudio yet
you too are of the Hasbara Watch team? Listen, beware because I'm on the Troll Watch team. And I'm good at it.

Posted by: claudio | Sep 21, 2013 4:08:50 AM | 88

btw, although it may be redundant, and sound to some as a confirmation of deeply held suspicions, I declare I hold bevin's contributions in high esteem, and often had the desire to press a "I like" button

Posted by: claudio | Sep 21, 2013 4:23:56 AM | 89

returning to the post that got the whole argument started, my #30, I think we must credit 'someone' also for a second point, one for which he was even reprimanded by b: pointing out the resistance the Us armed forces were opposing to the prospect even of "limited strikes"

I was generally conscious of the existence of such divisions within the Us establishment, deducing it from the easiness with which its European vassals called themselves out; but 'somebody' expended effort in searching for clues among official declarations

I've come to think that Nato in the first place took Russian's opposition very seriously; then the turning point was obviously the two missiles Russia shot down two days before the G-8 meeting

Posted by: claudio | Sep 21, 2013 4:47:29 AM | 90

the turning point was obviously the two missiles Russia shot down two days before the G-8 meeting
Excuse me?

%-)

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 21, 2013 5:19:08 AM | 91

@89 - G-20, not G-8

Posted by: claudio | Sep 21, 2013 5:28:39 AM | 92

@89

Ah he's just trollin ya, Rowan. I gather his mission is to emulate his new hero zomebody. I think that's what the french call un fromage (did I spell that correctly, bev?)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 21, 2013 7:48:16 AM | 93

not at all;

btw, I largely agree on Rowan Berkeley #34

and I already said that Hmm's #35 is an interesting hypothesis

but both imply that the Lobby isn't omnipotent; it'd be nice to be able to take this as a starting point for a finer analysis of events, without having to watch one's back from some Hasbara Watch

Posted by: claudio | Sep 21, 2013 9:04:18 AM | 94

Off ye go then . . . . ain't no one stopping you

But tbh anyone that can, with a straight face, write

"also for a second point, one for which he was even reprimanded by b: pointing out the resistance the Us armed forces were opposing to the prospect even of "limited strikes""

is cleary either suffering from memory lapse or just plain ol' trollin

Posted by: hmm | Sep 21, 2013 9:18:30 AM | 95

. . . imho :)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 21, 2013 9:19:21 AM | 96

@93 - it's out there for all to see; 'somebody' interpreted some Air Force commander's comment regarding the "unpreparedness" of the AF for military action against Syria as dissent over the prospect, whereas b interpreted it as a normal lobbying action against financial cuts;

events seem to prove 'somebody' right

btw, the "imho" disclaimer is taken for granted in all post here at MoA

Posted by: claudio | Sep 21, 2013 9:33:13 AM | 97

on the topic They only understand force

Those who understand force, first of all, are those who possess it and use it. (And count on its results.)

Second, those who poodle up to those who display it. E.g. Europe - most flagrantly France post-Chirac (De Gaulle would have nothing to do with NATO and was turned to the Arab world, that policy was overturned by Sark the First and now splendidly on show with Hollande), or GB in the Afgh. but particularly Iraq imbroglios.

Obama is thus displaying ‘mirroring’ - a common tactic amongst abusers - where blame for one’s own aggression is projected onto the accuser or enemy. It is more than just racist, although he IS taking up very ancient racist BS, it is a technique that often works.

sidebar: I’m not indulging in pop psychology for nothing. It seems to have taken over. Hollande, for ex. was afaik, the first to use the blatant expression punish Syria, then it was gleefully taken up by US media. Like spanking Assad, bad, bad kid or even dog...that will show you how to behave! / end sidebar.

Btw, Obama has always been a sort of racist, in the sense that he loathes black men (he wrote damning passages in his books though I’m not **** to look them up..) but this was prompted imho more by an attack on the lowest US socio-economic segment (recall, he is the puppet for the financial industry and for more private control of education, more testing, etc.) as lazy, irresponsible, violent, druggies, and so on, a group he needs to distinguish himself from. Perceived roots or ties he is determined to squash, in any case he has no links with the Afro-American experience.

Race in itself is not important, he likes black women just fine.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 21, 2013 10:50:32 AM | 98

Look, there is no doubt that "somebody" leanings are essentially pro-Zionist but dressed up in the "above it all" tone of a Jon Stewart (without any of the 'humor', of course). I too am shocked by the number of times I have read deeper into his posts and links only to find he was presenting something not contained within.

But this is clear to a great many of us. We do not need a super hero in a cape, as apparently "hmmm" you seem to consider himself, to come and tell us that a certain somebody is full of shit. It is enough to be one of the many posters who can take on his arguments and destroy them on their merits without having to descending into to childish churlishness. "Jizreal"? Wtf is that, really? Mind that, you've added 5 more posts to your previous total of 25 here. 30 must be some sort of new MoA record.

There is something about when people first come to this site (or probably any) that makes them feel they have to engage in personal attacks. It is some simple monkey behavior that likely goes back many eons now taking form in the internet age. That's fine of course but it has to end at some point. Your position is secure. B has not banned you. We look forward to your posts. Welcome home. Now please, cut the bullshit.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 21, 2013 10:59:26 AM | 99

@96

I've always felt that, though Obama, symbolically is hugely important, that the US has not had a truly "Black" president, and will not have one until we have an African American president whose roots go back through the pre-Civil War times.

Unrelated though - I once said that I would have a new respect for Obama if he didn't go through with the Syria attack and... though "respect" is too strong a word I am amazed and surprised that he didn't just go ahead and launch it even in the face of massive opposition. Maybe in the same way you might be surprised to wake up in a serial killers home, surrounded by mutilated corpses, only to have the killer tell you "have a nice day, your free to go".

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 21, 2013 11:24:27 AM | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.